Amitava Lala, J - (1.) . -Section 26(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (No. 26 of 1973) provides the power of the Commissioner of Payments as follows : "Before making any payment to the owner of any coal mine or group of coal mines under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall satisfy himself as to the right of such person to receive the whole or any part of such amount, and in the event of there being a doubt or dispute as to the right of the person to receive the whole or any part- of the amount, referred to in Sections 8 and 9, the Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Court and make the disbursement in accordance with the decision of the Court."
(2.) It appears from page 58 of the petition that the following order is passed by the Commissioner of Payments : "I have carefully perused the facts noted in the foregoing paragraphs. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the two Coal Mines i.e. 'Demua' and 'Kelichhaper' have been nationalised by the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, it is difficult to imagine that the Coal - Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, nationalised the said two collieries even though they were already owned by Union Government through the National Coal Development Corporation (A Central Government undertaking) immediately before the date of nationalisation i.e. 1.5.73. By implication and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have to conclude that the ownership of the said two collieries viz. 'Demua' and 'Kalichhappar' collieries did not belong to the State immediately before the date of nationalisation and I hold that immediately before the date of nationalisation i.e. 1.5.73, the owner of Demua colliery appearing at Sl. No. 347 the schedule to the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was M/s. Kanhen Vallery Coal Co. (P) Ltd. and the owner of 'Kalichhapar' colliery appearing at Sl. No. 355 of the schedule to the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was the Central Provinces Syndicate (P) Ltd."
(3.) Therefore, it appears that there was a doubt in respect of ownership of the said two collieries in the mind of the Commissioner of Payments. In the premises, law provides that the matter is to be referred under Sections 8 and 9 of the said Act to an appropriate Court and make the disbursement in accordance with the decision of the Court. As per explanation in the Section 25 of the said Act it is the "Court in relation to Coal Mines means the principle Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within the legal limits between whose jurisdiction the coal mine is situated". Therefore, the Commissioner of Payments proceeded wrongly as if he is the Civil Court. and determined the doubt or dispute which had to be adjudicated through an appropriate judicial process. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustainable.;